The real outcome should be that people realize that words are just words, and opinions are only opinions. The amount of criminal acts on Facebook can probably be counted on a few fingers. Even the kid posting that he hated and wanted to kill Obama is just a kid with an opinion. People say dumb things in anger, it's how people react to that anger which shapes a person.

The "illegal" stuff on the internet is already illegal. You can't buy and/or sell drugs, you can't hire a hitman, you can't sell secret information for money, you can't traffic illegal goods including humans, etc.. etc.. All of those things are illegal, and none of them require the Internet to accomplish.

That someone dislikes an opinion.. not illegal. Even if they call you names and yell at you for having a different opinion, it is not illegal.

Stop believing what people tell you about boogeymen being around every corner, it's simply not true! I don't care what you post on Facebook, words are not dangerous. Never have been, never will be, but seems very difficult for simple people. Simple people that seem to fear words so much at any rate (I'm looking specifically at Universities and Politicians who specialize in fear mongering with fabricated and false information mostly).

Block the poster, problem solved. If they really stalk you, call the police. A person stalking you is probably illegal, and the person should be prosecuted if they break the law.

If a person calls me a name, I first wonder if I deserved the ad hominem. If not, I have actions I can take to not see their words. Simply put, I have not logged in to Facebook for at least 3 years. Cancel your account.

Sure, there are exceptions to the rule.. but they are so rare it's not worth asking about.

Most malware is hosted and served out by businesses most people consider "legit". This is second only to Governments who infect millions of devices often inadvertently.

In both of those cases, there is no use in reporting. Oh yeah, some schlep will probably be made to be a fall guy but the shit storm will still be there churning out shit.

Report when the correct people can be, and are, held accountable for their actions. Until then, all men are created equally and have the same rights under due process. If one class of people puts themselves above the law, the laws are invalid. Unfortunately this is a cyclical problem in history. Expect vigilantism to increase until things are put back into balance.

Straw man, and one that has been repeatedly debunked. Just remember, advertisers and marketing people said the same exact things about Radio and TV as you are repeating about Computers. Llets go with a simple common sense question which you should have asked yourself: If computers are so "integral" why do the countries with the least computers have the strongest math and science skills? (see China, India)

Then take note of what you say next about _using_ a computer. Using and Programming are not the same thing, and are quite often contradictory.

Basic level chemistry is like basic level physics, and yes it's basic. A perfect introduction to how the world fits together, and like Physics it displays the need for math. I'm not sure why you asked the question deriding chemistry alone when you could have also asked "You call creative writing basic?" or "You call Algebra "basic"? Yes, those are all basic. Amazingly, none of those require a computer.

You are so caught up in your own ego that you seem to actually believe the BS you write.

The only way to come to your conclusion is to ignore facts. You can go read the original decision and evidence which accompanied the decision. No, you don't need to be an attorney to figure this out.

No, again you can go read the decision and evidence (which includes the charges from Oracle against Google). It was one of the most open Civil cases I have ever seen.

At best a straw man, at worst complete horse shit. IBM does not run around suing people over bullshit like this, and _IF_ they had bought Sun they _Might_ have done something fools nobody but you. Fighting pretty hard to hold that delusion that Oracle is right aren't ya? Well, you did say you worked there so...

An opinion which completely ignores facts is worth very little. An opinion that counters facts and relies on events that never happened... absolutely useless.

Your point of something being retarded is aimed in the wrong direction. "Securing" would mean that they originally owned it, but they didn't. They purchased Sun and immediately started legal actions which Sun was never going to pursue because they knew they had open sourced Java. In fact in the Google vs. Oracle case numerous messages from Sun came out expressing exactly that, which is why the first Judge ruled for Google. The Judge also understood the sheer idiocy of Oracle claiming patent and copyright on things like function names and how arguments get passed to them, and all the other crap that Oracle claimed was stolen by Google.

I still have no idea how the first decision was overturned.. oh wait.. money and Larry's personal lobby group.. nevermind.

The Laws we have in place are the same as we had back then. The main difference today is that people holding public offices tend to flaunt their pay-for-play status, where back in the 80s/90s they were still attempting to hide it. The biggest harm to IT took a while to get precedents set, but really started almost immediately with "ideas" being patented and copyrighted (you can thank the first Bush for that lovely patent reform).

As an example, Athena (X) was developed mostly by DARPA funding and grant money. Yet we had to see 32 screens worth of copyrights just to start the Xserver (okay, 32 is an exaggeration but the point remains). Some of these were to Universities like MIT, Berkley, and Stanford. Many others though were to Novell, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, etc.. etc... And no, these were not "credits", but copyrights. This is why Linux started with a pretty old version of X and basically had to reinvent the wheel. Linux had 1 crappy pay-for version of CDE because some schlep company ended up buying copyrights to extort money from people.

Obviously, I don't believe this requires a large leap on logic. I said users need to intervene to stop ads, you pointed to a browser which meets the exact criteria I gave.. that a user must intervene to stop ads. The browser only changes what a user needs to install to intervene and block ads.

NO! Good grief, at least spend 10 seconds searching Wiki before attempting to appear knowledgeable on a subject. You follow a blatant fabrication with a questionable statement, and close with complete crap. The purpose of the Constitution was not to make a 'stronger' Federal government, not even close.

What neither side pointed out in their statements was that there is a huge difference between companies creating ads and adblock. Primarily, that Adblock does not come to users by default. People have to find, download, and install Ad-block. It does not come pre-installed on anything I have ever seen.

Now compare that to the ad companies complaining who give you ads without your consent, and where you can not block them without an application like Adblock. You have to see their crap until you can figure out how to block it.

I have nearly the same amount of respect for these "advert" companies as I do for spammers. I think there is a spec on the bottom of my shoe someplace... er wait, what did I step in??